Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Saktijit Dey, JM & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member:
Aforesaid appeals by the assessee are against separate orders of learned CIT(A)-36, Mumbai, for assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Since, grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are common, except the quantum of additions made, for the sake of convenience, we propose to reproduce hereunder the ground raised in for A.Y. 2006-07:
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is invalid and bad in law.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in concurring with the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of S.145(3) of the Act.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the findings of the Assessing Officer that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries to NIBR Bullion Pvt. Ltd. and others in disregard to the purchase and sale transactions carried during the relevant previous year; and in upholding the addition of `.11,95,946/-. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the sustenance of alleged commission income @0.5% being very excessive and unreasonable requires to be substantially reduced. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Income-tax Act.” 2. Briefly, facts are, a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of NIBR Group on 25.09.2008 and the assessee, who is an individual, was also covered under the said search and seizure operation. As a consequence of the search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s. 153A was initiated in case of the assessee for the aforesaid assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO on the basis of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation as well as the statement recorded from the assessee concluded that assessee was actually providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus sales bills. Accordingly, he estimated the commission income by applying 0.5% on the total turnover shown by the assessee at `.25,12,62,994/-, which worked out to `.13,81,946/-. As the assessee has declared income of `.1,86,000/- in the return of income, the balance amount of `.11,95,946/- was added back to the income of the assessee by the AO.
Similar additions were also made in the other two assessment years under appeal.
The additions made by the AO in these assessment years was challenged by the assessee by preferring appeal before the CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
When the appeals were called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is also no application seeking adjournment by the assessee. As could be seen from record, these are very old appeals pertaining to the year 2011. It is also evident from order sheet entries, on earlier occasions when the appeals were fixed for hearing no one has appeared for the assessee. In fact, perusal of record shows that notices of hearing issued to the assessee through RPAD have returned unserved with the postal remark “Left”. The aforesaid facts reveal that the assessee is not at all interested in pursuing its appeals. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeals exparte, qua the assessee, after hearing learned DR and on the basis of material available on record.
On perusal of the impugned assessment orders, we have noticed that in the course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of assessee and other related concerns, incriminating materials were found and seized, which revealed that the assessee was not involved in actual purchase and sale transactions but was providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus sales bills. In fact, the aforesaid modus operandi of the assessee was corroborated through other evidences including statement recorded from the assessee. Therefore, on the basis of seized material and evidences brought on record, the AO rejected the books of account of the assessee and estimated commission income @ 0.5% of the total turnover shown. Neither before the CIT(A) nor before us, the assessee has brought any substantive evidence/material to controvert the findings of the AO. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the assessment made u/s. 153A or estimation of commission income after rejecting the books of account.
As far as interest charged u/s. 234B is concerned, levy of such interest being mandatory and consequential, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the departmental authorities on this issue.
The aforesaid decision applies mutatis mutandis to the other two appeals as well.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th day of May 2017.